Mutant Bird Flu Studies Should Be Revealed in Full, Experts Say

Below:

Next story in Science

The results of two studies that created more transmissible forms
of the H5N1 bird flu virus will be published in full — at some
point, flu scientists and public health officials meeting today
(Feb. 17) at the World Health Organization have agreed.

A moratorium on research on
lab-created viruses and H5N1 transmission in mammals, as well
as on the publication of the two studies, will continue, most
likely lasting "a matter of months," said Keiji Fukuda, WHO
assistant director-general for health security and the
environment, in a news conference with reporters today at the
conclusion of the two-day meeting.

The delay is needed to explain the importance of the research and
address anxieties the research has raised, Fukuda said. The delay
would also allow officials time to re-assess the biosafety and
biosecurity conditions necessary for this kind of work. He
pointed out, there was no hint of problems at the two facilities
in question.

The group of 22 officials reached a "quite strong agreement that
full disclosure of the information contained in these studies was
really important from both the public health and scientific
perspectives," Fukuda said.

In addition, the group decided that setting up a process to
redact, or withhold, certain details while making them available
to certain people would not be feasible because of the
complexities involved, he said.

H5N1 spreads among birds and can be picked up by people, and has
even caused fatalities. But so far, it cannot spread readily
between people. If the virus acquires this ability it could start
a pandemic. The two studies in question asked: How could this
happen? [ 7
Devastating Infectious Diseases ]

Using ferrets as stand-ins for people, they developed viruses
that could spread through the air between the animals. But,
because of differences between ferrets and humans, it is not
known if these viruses could do the same thing in humans.

The details of the two studies, one conducted at Erasmus Medical
Center in the Netherlands, and one conducted at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison, have been accepted for publication by the
journals Science and Nature, respectively.

"My surprise is they actually did achieve a decision," said Bruce
Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science in a press conference the
same day. "I am not completely clear about what that decision
means, because it is qualified."

Some have gone even further, arguing the research should never
have been done. DA Henderson, of the Center for Biosecurity at
the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, is among them. He
said he is concerned the recommendations offer encouragement to
labs around the world that might be less aware of the risks but
anxious to get credit for doing adventuresome science.

"I think there is less restraint preached here by virtue of
saying let's go ahead and preceded there is very imp research to
be done," he said.

At the other end of the spectrum, some scientists have opposed
the option of withholding details from publication and
distributing them only to certain people, say it would impede
crucial public health research intended to prevent or prepare for
a pandemic.

"In science, you never know who is going to do the right
experiment to solve a tough problem. To parcel out information
goes against that idea," said Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at
Columbia University.

He welcomed the conclusions.

"This information needs to be published and I am gratified that
the conference members realized that publication of a redacted
form would be useless," he told LiveScience in an email.